Navigate:

2012 fundraising: Obama courts hesitant mega donors

Big liberal donors are hesitant to jump back into the outside money game. | Reuters

“The DA has been accused of being both too political and not political enough,” said its managing director Kelly Craighead. “The truth is, our partners focus on building a more progressive country and fighting the right. That requires an infrastructure that wasn’t there in 2004, but is there now because of the investments they’ve made. Certainly elections are a part of that system, but only a part of the broader work we’re supporting.”

Democracy Alliance was launched in 2005 with the backing of Lewis and billionaire financier George Soros. In the preceding months, they had contributed a combined $38.5 million to a pair of unlimited-money liberal groups that raised a total of nearly $200 million to air ads and fund get-out-the-vote efforts boosting Democrat John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The failure of that spending deluge to defeat Bush left a bad taste in the mouths of many of the Democratic donors who contributed. More than a few of them joined Soros and Lewis in the Democracy Alliance.

It had as its goal the reallocation of liberal cash away from advertising groups to non-profits such as Center for American Progress and Media Matters that are geared towards competing in an ongoing war of ideas with the right. The concept copied the model pioneered by conservative benefactors like the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, who helped fund a well-established network of conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, as well as media outlets like the libertarian Reason magazine and leadership training programs.

The Democracy Alliance requires its top donors to pay annual dues starting at $30,000 to support member activities including its twice-a-year conferences — which feature a mix of policy briefings, dinners and cocktail parties — and its staff, who vet and recommend nonprofit groups to which its members can contribute. Those members, who are called governing partners, are required to contribute a minimum of $170,000 to recommended groups, which have primarily focused on policy, issue advocacy and voter mobilization – but not traditionally campaign advertising groups.

Recently, though, the group made a number of adjustments to account for dwindling membership of top donors, and a changed political landscape.

In 2010, it created a lower tier membership of so-called general partners who committed to paying half the annual dues and donations — $15,000 and $85,000, respectively — as the top donors, and about one-quarter of the group’s 90 members participate at the lower level. And last year, after a pair of federal court decisions paved the way for unlimited spending by outside groups, the DA opened its doors to new Democratic super PACs, despite concerns from many of its members and its beneficiary groups about the potentially corrupting influence of big money in politics.

What good does it do all these money men to get a few billion dollars in taxpayer-funded kickbacks from Obama in return for their donatins if his inept, socialist bumbling ends up collapsing the whole economic system - as it is beginning to do now?

What the Obama regime is doing now is the equivalent of a family making $60,000 per year and spending $85,000 per year, and financing the extra $25,000 by running up their charge cards, which they already owe $240,000 on. Clearly it is fiscal insanity for a family to do this, and it is just as insane for the government to do it.

Sure, we disagree....... some of you are parasitic socialist Obama-loving Chicago style thugs who want to force nuns to take birth control pills washed down with holy water...............

And some of us are uptight sexless conservative prudes who want to make the practice of sex for purposes other than procreation a capital offense punishable by public burning at the stake..............

BUT WE CAN STILL BE FRIENDS........ SO CHECK YOUR FRIEND REQUESTS BY GOING INTO YOUR PROFILE AND LOOK FOR THE "VIEW FRIEND REQUEST" LINK!

I HAVE DOZENS OF REQUESTS OUT THERE PENDING....... AND IF I HAVE FORGOTTEN TO SEND YOU A REQUEST, PLEASE SEND ONE TO ME!

It's pretty clear that Dems are going to be faced with an avalanche of right-wing Super PAC money this election cycle. Romney's billionaires are not as prominent as the other Repub candidates', but there are more of them (which means they'll pony up more after he becomes the nominee. His Mormon donors will redirect their tithes to his campaign and/or his Super PAC. Down the ticket, the same will occur with Americans for Prosperity and all the other Koch-like groups.

As the Repubs stake out even more extremist positions, their ad campaigns will focus on the economy. The goal is to repeat 2010: run on the economy, govern on reproductive rights, restricting access to the ballot, cutting or eliminating the effect of pesky regulations like the Clean Air and Water Acts, and above all - cutting taxes for the wealthy, and removing as many restrictions as possible on every aspect of doing business. "The Market Reglates Itself" will become the new mantra, and any talk of "externalities" wil be branded as Socialism. (Milton Friedman and Karl Marx - ideological blood brothers.)

2012 may be seen in retrospect as the dawn of a new Gilded Age, ushered in by Citizens United, in which deep-pocketed interests have essentially unlimited sway over public policy. Unlike the original Gilded Age, votes will not be bought by beer and other minor financial blandishments, but rather by influencing the least knowledgeable segments of the American electorate - the so-called "swing voters" who don't really know what they think, and are too lazy to do their own research.

Eventually, however, Winston Churchill's famous characterization will come to fruition: Americans can be trusted to do the right thing, after they've exhausted all the other available options. People will get tired of pollution, irked by voting restrictions, and become angered by the power of the health insurance companies, the right-wing media conglomerates, and infuriated by the unlimited power of financial elites. It will probably take the continued decline of the middle class, another asset bubble, a fifth hyper-conservative vote on the Supreme Court, and perhaps a few more tragic industrial "accidents" like the BP oil spill or a major incident involving food safety to make this happen.

But it will occur. The pendulum always swings back the other way in this country.

I dont think Obama and his supportors will be able to match Romney and his band of bankers and CEOs. Hell, throw in the foxnews machine and it looks like Romney will have a huge in advantage in money, influence, and air time.

Obama spent nearly 8$ a vote compared to McCain's 5$ a vote in 2008. Are the Libs freakin kidding themselves or what? Obies' now on his 100th fundraiser. Obama spends nearly a billion on a POTUs campaign to oust the GOP and the libs have issues over super pacs? lol

It probably is that Obama has turned into something they don't like which is in the system and going to the middle to get re-elected. After all Obama embraced Citizen's united, among many other Bush policies. maybe the Libs didn't get what they thought they paid for in the first place.

In 2008, we garden-variety voters from the middle class, youth, hispanics, environmentalists, some elderly, new voters, thinking Republicans, those who normally don't even get involved - all of us came out and supported Obama as "The Change You Can Believe In".

"Support" even meant putting out money where our mouths were, and Obama had a huge number and a huge amount of garden-variety folks small donations. They added up and were significant for his campaign.

Over the last three and a half years, Obama has:

1. Escalated and expensive war his supporters did not want,

2. Failed to reform the financial sector,

3. Appointed a "job czar" who is CEO of a company that exports jobs and paid zero taxes in the last year,

4. Turned his back on 60-years of Democratic health care policy and gave us an insurance company subsidy paid for with tax $,

Obama's policies feathered the nests of the wealthy, Wall Street, the insurance companies, the run-away military, etc. Obama's policies beggared those who voted for him. But, the wealthy can now move to a Party that will give them even more - The Republicans - and those who voted for Obama, those who he turned his back on as soon as he got in - cannot be relied on again for campaign funds. Essentially, Obama's policies beggared the very who voted for him originally. Obama's main problem is going to be explaining to his original supporters why he turned on them.

I dont think Obama and his supportors will be able to match Romney and his band of bankers and CEOs. Hell, throw in the foxnews machine and it looks like Romney will have a huge in advantage in money, influence, and air time.

Obama's stated goal is ONE BILLION dollars. That ain't gonna come from $10 donations from granny's SS check. Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street types will give as much or more than they did last cycle. In fact, the big donors will probably give to both sides, because there is not a clear winner, at this time. And, if you think Fox News equals all the liberal media sources, you lack anything approaching objectivity.

Would have sworn the the President and Liberal/Progressives touted the fact that their president was elected on the "Little Peoples" money and not as a result of the money of all those Millionaires and Billionaires.

I am very confused because this article seems to point to the loss of Millionaires and Billionaires money, So which way is it and don't forget it was the "Little People" that got him eleceted the last time, right?

Its not the big money I worry about.. Last night for some reason I woke up and was thinking about where our country is now. It occurred to me that democrats have put us in a difficult situation though their welfare state polices. They take what is our money and basically give it away putting us even in hock for over 40% of all expenses and then in turn buy votes with it by giving it to supporters. What a sweet deal. You take over the country all the while demonizing the very people your charging taxes and fees to do so. Now that they have nearly half the country dependent on this stolen money they are quite smug in their chances because they well know voters who have been made dependent are not going to want to cut off their supply of other peoples money. That is who the democrats are. They only take from the public while causing the rest of us to pay every higher prices for fuel, food, medical care, ect. Now they are once again adding endless hidden taxes while trying to get by with pretending they are reducing business taxes. We are Greece, but most of the takers don't know it.

George Soros, the "Campaigner in Chief" Obama and Progressive donors are worried that Obama will be at a disadvantage in being reelectioned.

Soros? you can always tell a Beck drone. The guy spends hours everyday trying to convince people George Soros and VanJones run the world.

Of course guys like Beck ignore the fact that the Koch Brothers, this year alone, have dwarfed all contributions ever made by Soros.

Koch's personally pledged $60 million dollars on top of all their previous contributions. And their PAC promised another $40 million. How about the $100 million promised by Sheldon Anderson and wife to prop up Newt? Or the millions pumped in by Fryes to keep a clown like Santorum in the race.

Billionaires control the country. They are now blatently and openly buying the elctions. Because they can. But the right still supports Citizens United.

This is obviously what the founding fathers intended. A country by the mega-rich, for the mega-rich.

Oh sorry.... they're not rich, they're "job-creators". And they're upset because they're being stifled by taxes. You know, like Romney the job creator - who has to pay his whopping 14%.

The Dems have out-raised the Republicans in every respect this year, just as they did in 2008.

Obama is on track to raise his billion-dollar campaign war chest. The DNC has out-raised the RNC. The Dem Senate campaing and the Dem House campaign funds are ahead of their rival Republicans funds. And in "Super-Pacs", the Unions have coalesced and ponied up $400 mil already, and that doesn't include the Pacs for the environmental lobbies or even Obama' own Super Pac that Bill Mahr just gave $1 mil to.

Add to that the fact that the Republicans are spending most of the money they have on just the primaries, and will have to raise more for the general election, and you get a bleak picture for Republicans.

Yet, here is a Dem-placed advertisement, in the form of a Politico article, pleading for more Dem money to combat the "unlimited resources of the Rep Super-Pacs".